75 posts
• Page **1** of **4** • **1**, 2, 3, 4

***

The Royal Society of London has accepted my disproof of Bell’s theorem. My latest paper on the subject is just published by the Royal Society journal Open Science:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526

The paper exposes a number of oversights in Bell’s iconic theorem. But more importantly, it provides a viability proof of the “uniform basis” sought by Einstein for all of physics, by explicitly constructing a locally causal framework for all quantum correlations in terms of the spinorial properties of the physical space. The Bell-CHSH inequalities are then shown to hold only in the flat space in which the quaternionic and octonionic properties of the physical space are unwittingly ignored.

***

The Royal Society of London has accepted my disproof of Bell’s theorem. My latest paper on the subject is just published by the Royal Society journal Open Science:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526

The paper exposes a number of oversights in Bell’s iconic theorem. But more importantly, it provides a viability proof of the “uniform basis” sought by Einstein for all of physics, by explicitly constructing a locally causal framework for all quantum correlations in terms of the spinorial properties of the physical space. The Bell-CHSH inequalities are then shown to hold only in the flat space in which the quaternionic and octonionic properties of the physical space are unwittingly ignored.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1761**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

Here is a link to the PDF of the paper: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526

***

Here is a link to the PDF of the paper: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1761**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

The published paper is now also on the arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392. It was released today after I submitted it on the 30th of May last week. Nota bene the reverse chronological order of publications. Most physicists first publish on the arXiv, with their papers appearing online within hours of submission; then they publish in a journal, which may take many months to appear in print. In my case, last year (May 2017) this paper was stonewalled by arXiv-moderation, with my appeal also rejected. They had asked me to provide a resolvable DOI from a journal before they would allow it on the arXiv and had refused to tell me what was wrong with it. Their exact answer to my query: "Our moderators do not provide detailed reviews."

I, of course, know what is wrong with the paper. It is politically incorrect.

****

The published paper is now also on the arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392. It was released today after I submitted it on the 30th of May last week. Nota bene the reverse chronological order of publications. Most physicists first publish on the arXiv, with their papers appearing online within hours of submission; then they publish in a journal, which may take many months to appear in print. In my case, last year (May 2017) this paper was stonewalled by arXiv-moderation, with my appeal also rejected. They had asked me to provide a resolvable DOI from a journal before they would allow it on the arXiv and had refused to tell me what was wrong with it. Their exact answer to my query: "Our moderators do not provide detailed reviews."

I, of course, know what is wrong with the paper. It is politically incorrect.

****

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1761**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy,

As you know I have been busy the last two weeks with my Kaluza Klein paper, but I did want to take a moment to offer public congratulations! I know all too well the perils and pitfalls along the road you are traveling.

Jay

As you know I have been busy the last two weeks with my Kaluza Klein paper, but I did want to take a moment to offer public congratulations! I know all too well the perils and pitfalls along the road you are traveling.

Jay

- Yablon
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**270**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm**Location:**New York

Yablon wrote:Joy,

As you know I have been busy the last two weeks with my Kaluza Klein paper, but I did want to take a moment to offer public congratulations! I know all too well the perils and pitfalls along the road you are traveling.

Jay

Many thanks, Jay. I truly appreciate, not only your congratulations but also the enormous effort you put in two years ago to help.

Good luck, BTW, in your Kaluza Klein work.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1761**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

hooray, well done. so what's next on the list?

- lkcl
**Posts:**65**Joined:**Wed Sep 28, 2016 5:15 am

lkcl wrote:hooray, well done. so what's next on the list?

Thanks, Luke.

Ideally, I would like to get back to what I was working on before; namely, "quantum gravity." The RSOS paper is a preamble to that goal.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1761**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

One of the purposes of the RSOS paper is to demonstrate that when we ignore the quaternionic and octonionic properties of the physical space captured in the 3- and 7-spheres respectively, then the traditional interpretation of Bell's theorem is recovered. That is a bit like in this GIF. In the flatland, an ellipse may look like a circle.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1761**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

The journal statistics for the usage of my article is now available, which shows 1,244 downloads during the 20 days since the article was published:

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... ticle-info

I must thank Professor Richard David Gill for his tenacious advertising campaign for my disproof of Bell's theorem over the past eleven or so years.

***

The journal statistics for the usage of my article is now available, which shows 1,244 downloads during the 20 days since the article was published:

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... ticle-info

I must thank Professor Richard David Gill for his tenacious advertising campaign for my disproof of Bell's theorem over the past eleven or so years.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1761**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

The above article usage statistics at the journal's website is being updated every day. There are 35 more PDF downloads since yesterday.

***

The above article usage statistics at the journal's website is being updated every day. There are 35 more PDF downloads since yesterday.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1761**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

In the last three days, further 104 PDF downloads of the paper have occured, bringing the total to 1,348: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... ticle-info.

***

In the last three days, further 104 PDF downloads of the paper have occured, bringing the total to 1,348: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... ticle-info.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1761**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy, do you know if the listing they provide is for unique IP addresses? Or might there be a duplication if an individual goes back several times? Best, Jay

- Yablon
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**270**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm**Location:**New York

Yablon wrote:Joy, do you know if the listing they provide is for unique IP addresses? Or might there be a duplication if an individual goes back several times? Best, Jay

Jay, I don't know what method they are using to calculate the number of PDF downloads. I was very skeptical about 1,348 PDF downloads in 23 days. So what I did was to check out statistics for some other papers published by RSOS for several months, to see what their rate of PDF downloads was. The typical number of downloads seems to be less than 200 in four months.

Here is the downloads statistics for their "most cited" paper (not very impressive): http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... ticle-info.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1761**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy,

1. Heartiest congratulations on getting more of your work published; I've long known of the battles ++ that you've had to fight!

2. Some elementary questions arise, for me: so maybe you'll need to recommend some good text books. However, from your Abstract: "The resulting geometrical framework thus overcomes Bell's theorem by producing a strictly deterministic and realistic framework that allows a locally causal understanding of all quantum correlations, without requiring either remote contextuality or backward causation."

3. In the context of Bell's theorem, I believe the above result is readily produced in 3-space. Thus I've been generating outputs like that below for many years: using little more than highschool math; also generating the s = 1/2 and s = 1 outputs from basic [truly local-realistic] functions in 3-space. [Me also thinking that 3-space is OK since time and gravity may be neglected when refuting Bell? Yes?]

4. I'd therefore welcome your explanation/comments on the physical significance of your latest work. For I'm thinking that you must also be able to produce your results in 3-space in a similar way to what I do in #3. Yes? So what is the physical significance of the 7-sphere model, please? For example, how does it differ from what can be derived via GA in 3-space?

5. Or are you paving the way for a more comprehensive mechanics in spacetime? (Much more simply, of course: I've only focussed on refuting BT in spacetime when time and gravity can be neglected.)

PS: Please let me know if other serious discussion sites also open up.

With my best regards, and congrats again; Gordon

***[/quote]

1. Heartiest congratulations on getting more of your work published; I've long known of the battles ++ that you've had to fight!

2. Some elementary questions arise, for me: so maybe you'll need to recommend some good text books. However, from your Abstract: "The resulting geometrical framework thus overcomes Bell's theorem by producing a strictly deterministic and realistic framework that allows a locally causal understanding of all quantum correlations, without requiring either remote contextuality or backward causation."

3. In the context of Bell's theorem, I believe the above result is readily produced in 3-space. Thus I've been generating outputs like that below for many years: using little more than highschool math; also generating the s = 1/2 and s = 1 outputs from basic [truly local-realistic] functions in 3-space. [Me also thinking that 3-space is OK since time and gravity may be neglected when refuting Bell? Yes?]

4. I'd therefore welcome your explanation/comments on the physical significance of your latest work. For I'm thinking that you must also be able to produce your results in 3-space in a similar way to what I do in #3. Yes? So what is the physical significance of the 7-sphere model, please? For example, how does it differ from what can be derived via GA in 3-space?

5. Or are you paving the way for a more comprehensive mechanics in spacetime? (Much more simply, of course: I've only focussed on refuting BT in spacetime when time and gravity can be neglected.)

PS: Please let me know if other serious discussion sites also open up.

With my best regards, and congrats again; Gordon

***[/quote]

- Gordon Watson
**Posts:**209**Joined:**Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:39 am

***

Many thanks, Gordon.

In the RSOS paper I am working with 3-dimensional physical space only, with gravity neglected and time not playing any significant role for the issue of strong correlations at hand.

However, the 3-space I am working with is compactified. Usually the physical space is modeled by R^3. That is no good, because R^3 runs off to infinity along infinity of its radial directions. But the physical space does not run off to infinity in infinity of radial directions. Thus R^3 is not a valid model for the physical space. The problem with it can be fixed by identifying all of these infinitely many infinities with a single additional point. The resulting space is then S^3, which is equal to R^3 U {oo}. Note that S^3 is still a 3-dimensional space, but it is a compact space without infinities. Thus it is a much better model of the physical space. But it is still not a good enough model of the physical 3-space until it is parallelized. I quote from one of my 2011 papers to explain this:

When all this is done, the resulting space is a quaternionic 3-sphere, which is written as S^3 in the mathematical literature. S^3 provides the most adequate model for the physical space.

So, in short, I am working with only 3D physical space (without involving gravity or time), modeled by a 3-sphere that does not harbor any kind of undesirable infinities or singularities.

This still does not answer your question: What is the significance of S^7. Well, S^7 I am working with is the algebraic representation space of the quaternionic 3-sphere described above. It is essential to understand the local origins and strengths of ALL quantum correlations, not just EPR-Bohm type singlet correlations. See theorem 3.1 of my RSOS paper.

***

Many thanks, Gordon.

In the RSOS paper I am working with 3-dimensional physical space only, with gravity neglected and time not playing any significant role for the issue of strong correlations at hand.

However, the 3-space I am working with is compactified. Usually the physical space is modeled by R^3. That is no good, because R^3 runs off to infinity along infinity of its radial directions. But the physical space does not run off to infinity in infinity of radial directions. Thus R^3 is not a valid model for the physical space. The problem with it can be fixed by identifying all of these infinitely many infinities with a single additional point. The resulting space is then S^3, which is equal to R^3 U {oo}. Note that S^3 is still a 3-dimensional space, but it is a compact space without infinities. Thus it is a much better model of the physical space. But it is still not a good enough model of the physical 3-space until it is parallelized. I quote from one of my 2011 papers to explain this:

The triviality of the tangent bundle TS^3 means that the 3-sphere is parallelizable. A k-dimensional manifold is said to be parallelizable if it admits k vector fields that are linearly-independent everywhere. Thus on a 3-sphere we can always find three linearly-independent vector fields that are nowhere vanishing. These can then be used to define a basis of a tangent space at each of its points. As a result, a single coordinate chart can be defined on a 3-sphere that fixes each of its points uniquely. Informally, a manifold is said to be parallelizable if it is possible to set all of its points in a smooth flowing motion at the same time, in any direction. Rather astoundingly, this turns out to be possible only for the 0-, 1-, 3-, and 7-spheres. Thus parallelizability of these spheres happens to be an exceptionally special topological property. One way to appreciate it is by considering a manifold that is not parallelizable. For example, it is not possible to set every point of a 2-sphere in a smooth flowing motion, even in one direction. However you may try, there will always remain at least one fixed point --- a pole --- that will refuse to move. This makes it impossible, for example, to cover the Earth with a single coordinate chart. For similar reasons, parallelizability of the 3-sphere, or equivalently the triviality of its tangent bundle, turns out to be indispensable for respecting the completeness criterion of EPR. And since this criterion is the starting point of Bell’s theorem, understanding the parallelizability of 3-sphere turns out to be indispensable for understanding the topological error involved in all Bell-type arguments.

When all this is done, the resulting space is a quaternionic 3-sphere, which is written as S^3 in the mathematical literature. S^3 provides the most adequate model for the physical space.

So, in short, I am working with only 3D physical space (without involving gravity or time), modeled by a 3-sphere that does not harbor any kind of undesirable infinities or singularities.

This still does not answer your question: What is the significance of S^7. Well, S^7 I am working with is the algebraic representation space of the quaternionic 3-sphere described above. It is essential to understand the local origins and strengths of ALL quantum correlations, not just EPR-Bohm type singlet correlations. See theorem 3.1 of my RSOS paper.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1761**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:

This still does not answer your question: What is the significance of S^7. Well, S^7 I am working with is the algebraic representation space of the quaternionic 3-sphere described above. It is essential to understand the local origins and strengths of ALL quantum correlations, not just EPR-Bohm type singlet correlations. See theorem 3.1 of my RSOS paper.

I should add here that the compact 7-sphere (or S^7) constructed from the Euclidean primitives (together with a single point at infinity) provides the correct algebraic representation of the 3-dimensional physical space. It is thus not surprising that quantum correlations turn out to be nothing but correlations among the points of this carefully constructed, associative 7-sphere.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1761**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

It has been a month and a half since my latest paper was published in the Royal Society Open Science and so far there have been a thousand and a half PDF downloads of the paper.

If only 10% of people who have downloaded the paper actually read it and understand what has been presented, then we may have a conceptual revolution in physics by next year.

***

It has been a month and a half since my latest paper was published in the Royal Society Open Science and so far there have been a thousand and a half PDF downloads of the paper.

If only 10% of people who have downloaded the paper actually read it and understand what has been presented, then we may have a conceptual revolution in physics by next year.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1761**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Does anyone know of some good discussions about this grounbreaking paper on the internet? Links would be most welcome.

- Heinera
**Posts:**422**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

Heinera wrote:Does anyone know of some good discussions about this grounbreaking paper on the internet? Links would be most welcome.

There is some discussion on https://pubpeer.com/publications/170464 ... 5E2632D018

- Mikko
**Posts:**138**Joined:**Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:53 am

Mikko wrote:Heinera wrote:Does anyone know of some good discussions about this grounbreaking paper on the internet? Links would be most welcome.

There is some discussion on https://pubpeer.com/publications/170464 ... 5E2632D018

That is correct. There are some incredibly stupid comments on PubPeer about my paper by a certain third-rate statistician, who has no publication record either in Clifford algebra or general relativity --- even on the arXiv. Therefore his comments are worthless and should be ignored, as I have now decided to do.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1761**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

75 posts
• Page **1** of **4** • **1**, 2, 3, 4

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 6 guests